Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Red Canary

Soccernomics and Norwich city

Recommended Posts

I was reading the amazing book by Simon Kuper and Stefan

Szymanski about how mathematical data (win/loss/draw percentages) on teams can

predict there results in the future, mostly explaining England’s failure to win

a world cup and why different teams do so well and so poorly.

 

I was intrigued how this could apply to Norwich and perhaps

tell us where the club was heading.

 

What I calculated was that Norwich have a win percentage

of 35.36% for league games since 1902 till the present day. They have also drawn

27.4% of games. This gives us an average points total of 61 a season (in the

modern format...).

 

That gives Norwich an average finish of 12th in

the championship over the last 10 years.

 

Do people agree that this position accurately identifies our

club in the grand scheme of the 92? And can we improve in the future or are we

destined to be there or there abouts for the next 10 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems pretty accurate to me. The last 15 seasons have dragged us down somewhat. If you count the modern era as from the end of WW2 then I would say that our position in the football league tree would be 20 to 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s pretty accurate, because his model of wins/draws pretty accurately predict league positions well. I think it has been mentioned on here before that our "average" league position has been somewhere around mid-table second division.Szymanski''s stuff is good (though I would say that as an economist) and very interesting. However... to your final question...In his book he finds that the correlation between total team pay-roll and league success is very strong (the only notable outliers were Newcatle and Man City if I recall). And apart from getting very lucky with a great manager (or backroom) (aka Fergie, Wenger, Lyons), you will have to spend a lot to stay at the top.So unless Delia packs her bags... or Lambert starts to excel....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This the reality, that a lot of fans would like to ignore and certainly the NCISA don''t seem to grasp this basic reality. Financially, in the post sky era we are a championship mid-table club with lower premiership being the top of the normal probable range and top of the league one being the bottom of the normal probable range of performance which is exactly what we have seen. In terms of fan base we are bottom of the premiership and top of the championship but it is not the number of fans but what they pay which matters and becasue 40% of tickets are at concession prices that makes us a top half championship club rather than a premiership club. As McNally said we would need 35,000 crowds to make us a self-sustaining premiership club. You then have to adjust the financial assessment for the wealth and extent to which the owners subsidise the operation which is why we see clubs with smaller crowds in the premiership and then that makes us a mid-table championship club. Each year as only three out of twenty four clubs get promoted to the premiership we have a one in eight chance of getting promoted assuming a level playing field which I think we broadly ahve this year, there will be some clubs eg QPR with wealthier owners and some with parachute payments but this is offset by some smaller clubs in the championship so on average we should spend one year out of eight in the premiership. The only way out of this as someone has already noted is to have an outperforming maanger which I think we now have or a wealthier owner who can afford to subsidise the club more. As only Man U, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool makes any kind of sense as a financial investment you are reliant on a outsider with more money than sense or a genuine local wealthy fan. The problem is that such a fan is hard to find as there are not many super rich fans in Norfolk. The Turners were the fifth richest people in the region and they could not afford to subsidise the club to the extent required. Who knows though the private equity market is starting to come back and maybe that man PC will sell his business for 2 to 3 billion and be willing to give the current owners their 11m back rather than take the club for free as he offered before. Otherwise I think we should realise we are basically a championship club and enjoy being a fan.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol, T, why the need to bring NCISA into this discussion?Sounds like someone has an axe to grind.[:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote] The Turners were the fifth richest people in the region and they could

not afford to subsidise the club to the extent required. Who knows

though the private equity market is starting to come back and maybe that

man PC will sell his business for 2 to 3 billion and be willing to give

the current owners their 11m back rather than take the club for free as

he offered before. Otherwise I think we should realise we are basically

a championship club and enjoy being a fan.  [/quote]That''s the difference between being cash-rich and equity-rich though.  Delia, Mike, and Mr Foulger have amassed money that they can use over their lives, while the Turners are still using their money to earn more money.  And to be fair to the 3 that remained, they have put a much larger percentage of their wealth into the club than the Turners ever would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote] Delia, Mike, and Mr Foulger have amassed money that they can use over their lives[/quote]For can use, read have made.  Senility kicking in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"]Lol, T, why the need to bring NCISA into this discussion?

Sounds like someone has an axe to grind.

[:)]
[/quote]

Not particularly, but given the chairman talks about 15 years of failure under the current owners maybe a little awareness of basic history, economics and finance or just a little a bit of Nutty commonsense reality check would not go amiss if the organisation want to expand their membership as indicated. It really needs to decide if they want to be a passionate minority group stuck in the past with no grasp of fianncial reality or like labour and the tories realise that you need to occupy the duller but more realistic middle ground if you want to appeal to the masses. It seems to me that the the NCISA are starting to understand and accept the latter, albeit somewhat begrudgingly, and I wish Butler every success becasue I''m supportive of the concept of a supporters group which reflects general views rather than a group that reflects the genuine and stongly held but somewhat misguided views of a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]

[quote user="morty"]Lol, T, why the need to bring NCISA into this discussion?Sounds like someone has an axe to grind.[:)][/quote]

Not particularly, but given the chairman talks about 15 years of failure under the current owners maybe a little awareness of basic history, economics and finance or just a little a bit of Nutty commonsense reality check would not go amiss if the organisation want to expand their membership as indicated. It really needs to decide if they want to be a passionate minority group stuck in the past with no grasp of fianncial reality or like labour and the tories realise that you need to occupy the duller but more realistic middle ground if you want to appeal to the masses. It seems to me that the the NCISA are starting to understand and accept the latter, albeit somewhat begrudgingly, and I wish Butler every success becasue I''m supportive of the concept of a supporters group which reflects general views rather than a group that reflects the genuine and stongly held but somewhat misguided views of a minority.

[/quote]I don''t particularly see why you feel the need to single them out particularly on this subject really though, the committee members that I know personally seem pretty intelligent and realistic people. Surely the ethos of any supporters group is that it reflects the views and opinions of the fans it represents? So if all the fans wanted City to play in big pink fluffy wigs, then by virtue of their constitution NCISA would be duty bound to represent this opinion to the club!I don''t think that there are many fans who do not grasp the reality of the current financial situation in football, and, back on topic, I think mid table Championship probably fairly accurately represents where we should be, all factors considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is the NCISA and its members on here who have to quote PC been particularly unkind and unfair in their attacks on the club. I''ve no grounds to dispute that the committee members that you know are intelligent and realsitic but the views often expressed on this messge board by committee members are often neither intelligent or realistic. I agree that they should and have represented their members views but given their DNA as a protest group I don''t believe they represent the views  of the "silent majority" as is the inherent nature of most such groups their membership tends to include those with stronger more extreme views. Many of the áttacks historically on the club were based on a financial criticsim. I agree that following the economic crisis and the financial difficulties of a number of football clubs the majority of fans now see that the financial criticisms of the club as unfair. I agree whether we like it or not we are on average inherently a mid-table club financially although with continued subsidies from the owners, more financial sense from other clubs and a good manager now I like to think we can compete in the top half of the table with a decent shot at promotion on a fairly regular basis. We have not done recently because of the failed maangement appointments which have now been corrected.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a league such as the championship, which is very tight, it is likely that teams will have up and down seasons (on their average, standard deviations). Over the course of the past 10 seasons in this league we''ve had genuine attempts at promotion twice (succeeding once). It feels that certainly when the chips are going up we have been (the previous back room staff) good at capitalising and finishing the job, something we saw last season with the latest boards willingness to support Lambert and his signings. The key is if we are back in contention this season, something that is certainly within reasonable doubt, will we again do the sensible thing and back our manager with choice signings in the post-Christmas period. I certainly hope so, and infact I have confidence in McNally and co. to do as such.This leads me to a final point (finally). One of my major criticisms of the previous board was that when it counted, we refused to financially back the club on the pitch. I have no doubt, that given sufficient funds in the summer pre-premier league season, Worthington would have brought in the players (Ashton etc.) to keep us up, and perhaps build for the future. Our prudence then, and lack of understanding that money matters cost us dearly, for eventually the bad appointments and inconsistent spending patterns sunk us down to the third tier of English football. I for one, hope that previous mistakes have been learnt from and we can repeat success we achieved in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote] The Turners were the fifth richest people in the region and they could

not afford to subsidise the club to the extent required. Who knows

though the private equity market is starting to come back and maybe that

man PC will sell his business for 2 to 3 billion and be willing to give

the current owners their 11m back rather than take the club for free as

he offered before. Otherwise I think we should realise we are basically

a championship club and enjoy being a fan.  [/quote]That''s the difference between being cash-rich and equity-rich though.  Delia, Mike, and Mr Foulger have amassed money that they can use over their lives, while the Turners are still using their money to earn more money.  And to be fair to the 3 that remained, they have put a much larger percentage of their wealth into the club than the Turners ever would have.[/quote]PINK = Cuddly friends.GREEN = Useful individual.RED = The Devil itself.The Deliarite''s view in a nutshell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote] The Turners were the fifth richest people in the region and they could

not afford to subsidise the club to the extent required. Who knows

though the private equity market is starting to come back and maybe that

man PC will sell his business for 2 to 3 billion and be willing to give

the current owners their 11m back rather than take the club for free as

he offered before. Otherwise I think we should realise we are basically

a championship club and enjoy being a fan.  [/quote]That''s the difference between being cash-rich and equity-rich though.  Delia, Mike, and Mr Foulger have amassed money that they can use over their lives, while the Turners are still using their money to earn more money.  And to be fair to the 3 that remained, they have put a much larger percentage of their wealth into the club than the Turners ever would have.[/quote]PINK = Cuddly friends.GREEN = Useful individual.RED = The Devil itself.The Deliarite''s view in a nutshell[/quote]Not mine though.  Who are these mythical deliarites of whom you speak ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Cluckbert Chase"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote] The Turners were the fifth richest people in the region and they could

not afford to subsidise the club to the extent required. Who knows

though the private equity market is starting to come back and maybe that

man PC will sell his business for 2 to 3 billion and be willing to give

the current owners their 11m back rather than take the club for free as

he offered before. Otherwise I think we should realise we are basically

a championship club and enjoy being a fan.  [/quote]That''s the difference between being cash-rich and equity-rich though.  Delia, Mike, and Mr Foulger have amassed money that they can use over their lives, while the Turners are still using their money to earn more money.  And to be fair to the 3 that remained, they have put a much larger percentage of their wealth into the club than the Turners ever would have.[/quote]PINK = Cuddly friends.GREEN = Useful individual.RED = The Devil itself.The Deliarite''s view in a nutshell[/quote]Not mine though.  Who are these mythical deliarites of whom you speak ?[/quote]Your chosen terminology speaks volumes I''m afraid.... and just as we were beginning to get along.I sometimes wish I weren''t so aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the quest for promotion or to stay up can lead to financial disaster if the gamble does not come off as we are now seeing with numerous footballl clubs. Bowkett has said he would never sanction the wage levels which saw our promotion with Huckerby and Crouch as it was not financially prudent and McNally has also used the prudent word on a number of occasions so I would not hold your breath expecting a spending spree. I think most clubs are acting more sensibly now but it is about time that a limit of 60% of revenue was imposed on players wages with owners only allowed to spend on infrastructure and the academy pretty much as NCFC has been doing so that clubs can no longer effectively cheat by spending more than they can afford. This would create a more level playing field as club success would then be mainly down to attendances and how much fans pay rather than the extent that the club was financed by unsustainable contributiosn from debt or the owners and the fans would only have themselves to look at in terms of the money spent on the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]The problem is that the quest for promotion or to stay up can lead to financial disaster if the gamble does not come off as we are now seeing with numerous footballl clubs. Bowkett has said he would never sanction the wage levels which saw our promotion with Huckerby and Crouch as it was not financially prudent and McNally has also used the prudent word on a number of occasions so I would not hold your breath expecting a spending spree. I think most clubs are acting more sensibly now but it is about time that a limit of 60% of revenue was imposed on players wages with owners only allowed to spend on infrastructure and the academy pretty much as NCFC has been doing so that clubs can no longer effectively cheat by spending more than they can afford. This would create a more level playing field as club success would then be mainly down to attendances and how much fans pay rather than the extent that the club was financed by unsustainable contributiosn from debt or the owners and the fans would only have themselves to look at in terms of the money spent on the team.[/quote]

When and where did he say the above?  He did say last january that we could raise a couple of million by selling our best players but that promotion would be worth £5m so it wouldn`t make sense.  A slightly different mentality to the one you are attributing to him above......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="T"]The problem is that the quest for promotion or to stay up can lead to financial disaster if the gamble does not come off as we are now seeing with numerous footballl clubs. Bowkett has said he would never sanction the wage levels which saw our promotion with Huckerby and Crouch as it was not financially prudent and McNally has also used the prudent word on a number of occasions so I would not hold your breath expecting a spending spree. I think most clubs are acting more sensibly now but it is about time that a limit of 60% of revenue was imposed on players wages with owners only allowed to spend on infrastructure and the academy pretty much as NCFC has been doing so that clubs can no longer effectively cheat by spending more than they can afford. This would create a more level playing field as club success would then be mainly down to attendances and how much fans pay rather than the extent that the club was financed by unsustainable contributiosn from debt or the owners and the fans would only have themselves to look at in terms of the money spent on the team.[/quote]

When and where did he say the above?  He did say last january that we could raise a couple of million by selling our best players but that promotion would be worth £5m so it wouldn`t make sense.  A slightly different mentality to the one you are attributing to him above......

[/quote]

Mr C . It was a quote in a newspaper article. Bowkett and McNally have both made it clear they would still be prudent and not risk getting the club into financial difficulty to persue promotion. They budgeted for two years in league one so they could afford to continue to persue promotion without selling players. The point about the promotion to the premiership was that we were paying usnustainable wages and would have been in financial difficulty if we had not won promotion and that is something he would not sanction as a business man. The economic reality of football has not changed and therefore the language from the new management has not surprisingly not changed from the previous management. What has changed is that we have been winning on the football pitch so no one has been making a fuss about these comments as they did about the previous management team which is why you may have not noticed the comments. Bowkett also commented that when we got relegated we had a similar player budget to wolves and that he saw the problem being with Roeder''s use of loans rather than the budget that was made available.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T, i`ve read every interview with Bowkett and i`ve never seen anything like that quote.  I think you`re making it up.  As for the language of the new management being the same as the old- you are off your rocker.  There is NO WAY the old management would have made that comparison between flogging off our best players and promotion- given our financial position was "dire" according to our CE the old management would have been flogging players left right and centre to pay for the shortfall.

We now have people in place at the club (who were highly critical of the old regime) who understand what you have never grasped- that concentrating fully on creating a successful team on the pitch brings its own financial rewards, whilst wasting cash on other things whilst the team is caught in a spiral of decline can lead to financial disaster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, re. the Wolves quote, what Bowkett actually said was that they`d built a squad of their own players whilst we hadn`t- which applies just as much to the fact that they tended to hold on to their better players and build on them, whereas we just flogged ours off at the first opportunity and expected the manager to find a replacement for peanuts, as it does to loans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why should I make it up. I''m just saying that the economics of football have not suddenly changed over night and both have referred to taking a sensible and prudent financial approach. I would agree that they are better and selling the story than ND as a lawyer was but the reality has not changed.

I#m afraid you are too stubborn to understand that investing in fixed assets is absolutely fine if it is expected to generates extra funds for players be it catering facilities or new stands. If not explain why the club has spent money on new seats and why Everton recently announced a 9m new office and recreational development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]

why should I make it up. I''m just saying that the economics of football have not suddenly changed over night and both have referred to taking a sensible and prudent financial approach. I would agree that they are better and selling the story than ND as a lawyer was but the reality has not changed.

I#m afraid you are too stubborn to understand that investing in fixed assets is absolutely fine if it is expected to generates extra funds for players be it catering facilities or new stands. If not explain why the club has spent money on new seats and why Everton recently announced a 9m new office and recreational development.

[/quote]

I`m not sure why you made it up T, but i won`t hold my breath waiting for evidence of it.....

There is little point in giving you further oportunity to repeat your simplistic platitudinal mantra, but i`ve never said that fixed asset spend is bad per se, but that the balance has to be right.  The previous board admitted an "obsession" with such projects, 3 senior players questioned the boards ambition on the pitch, fans were up in arms, we seemed to struggle to attract or keep decent managers and players, we spiralled down on the pitch- and in the end it took our current Chairman to come out with a scathing attack on the way the club had been run to help instigate changes.  The quotes from him criticising the policies of the previous board are out there in the public domain, unlike your fabricated one- and i bet the one about being there to win football matches not build a property portfolio really sticks in your craw [:D].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not at all - always said the property deal was open to question. But say you are on the Board and you are looking at a transaction with a cost of 7m and a current market sale value of 10m at the time you make the decision, what would you do? You say No - sounds like you are more prudent that any of the directors. Rather ironic that don''t you think or maybe it easier to criticize on a message board than it is to make decisions in the real world but then how would you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]not at all - always said the property deal was open to question. But say you are on the Board and you are looking at a transaction with a cost of 7m and a current market sale value of 10m at the time you make the decision, what would you do? You say No - sounds like you are more prudent that any of the directors. Rather ironic that don''t you think or maybe it easier to criticize on a message board than it is to make decisions in the real world but then how would you know.[/quote]

If no-one on the board knew anything about property speculation i think i`d be an idiot to back it, in the knowledge that it would divert funds from the core product.  I invest-very successfully- in quoted companies and one thing which is a cardinal sin is straying away from the core business into areas the company has no expertise in.  I`ve also listed loads of other non-vital non-football spend over the years which you predictably ignore to childishly accuse me of not wanting people to have seats to sit on etc.

I`m not going to repeat loads of quotes (which you`ll just ignore...) but both Bowkett and McNally have made it quite clear that the football team is the focus, the other stuff is peripheral- and that, in a nutshell, is all i`ve ever wanted to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...